Jiban Chandra Kalita vs State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Heard Mr. A. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department appearing

for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. R. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. N. Goswami, the learned

counsel for the respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr. C. Baruah, the learned counsel for the Accountant General, Assam.

Considering the nature of the controversy, the writ petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties.

By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities more particularly, the respondent No. 3 to

resubmit his pension papers to the respondent No. 6, after making appropriate fixation his pay in terms of the communication dated 28.03.2017 made

by the Senior Accounts Officer under the establishment of the respondent No. 6. The writ petitioner has also pointed out the fact that an explanation

for certain irregularities alleged to have been made in the year 2014 has been called for him vide communication dated 19.08.2017 and he gave a reply

to the same vide his letter dated 28.08.2017.

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner retired from service as Junior Engineer on 29.08.2016, Rule 21(b)

(ii) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 will be attracted. He submits that as per the said provision, no proceeding can be drawn against a

retired employee, unless there is a sanction from theGovernor of the State. There admittedly is no sanction and therefore, there is no impediment in

directing the respondent concerned to resubmit the pension papers of the petitioner in terms of the communication dated 28.03.2017.

Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department submits that the earlier incumbent holding the post of Executive

Engineer in Mangaldoi Division (Irrigation) has been transferred out and the new incumbent has only joined recently. Therefore as per his instructions,

the pension papers of the petitioner will be resubmitted shortly. Dr. B. Ahmed also submits that re-fixation of pay cannot be done if the same was not

detected by the Accountant General 2 years prior to the retirement of the employee concerned. The same is prescribed by Clause (c) of Paragraph

No. 2 of the Finance Department’s Office Memorandum dated 29.04.1976.

Be that as it may, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

respondent No. 4 to resubmit the pension papers of the petitioner to the respondent No. 6 through to the respondent No. 3 within a period of 3 (three)

weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The respondent No. 6 on receipt of the pension papers shall accordingly do the

needful as expeditiously as possible and not later than a period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of the pension papers from respondent No.

3.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.